BREAKING: Rick Santorum to suspend campaign (UPDATED)

No story just yet on the Fox News website but they’ve confirmed it. Rumors had been circulating for days that Santorum would suspend or exit the campaign, after the latest instance of his daughter Bella being admitted to the hospital. She was released last night.

I won’t be able to update this until later today. Stay tuned to Fox News for the latest developments.

Update – 5:16 PM: The NYT Caucus Blog has more:

3:08 p.m. | Updated Rick Santorum suspended his presidential campaign on Tuesday, bowing to the inevitability of Mitt Romney’s nomination and ending his improbable, come-from-behind quest to become the party’s conservative standard-bearer in the fall.

“We made a decision over the weekend, that while this presidential race for us is over, for me, and we will suspend our campaign today, we are not done fighting,” Mr. Santorum said.

Mr. Santorum made the announcement at a stop in his home state of Pennsylvania after a weekend in which he tended to his 3-year-old daughter, Bella, who had been hospitalized with pneumonia.

Mr. Santorum, who was holding back tears, did not exactly specify why he was ending his presidential bid. He referred to his daughter’s illness, but said she was making great progress and was back home after being hospitalized over the weekend.

Mr. Santorum called Mr. Romney earlier in the day to tell him of his plans to suspend his campaign. Mr. Santorum told Mr. Romney that he is committed to defeating President Obama, but that he is not going to endorse immediately, said a source familiar with the call.

I share Michelle Malkin’s sentiment about Santorum:

Thanks and prayers to Santorum and his family for their energy and passion and dedication to defending life, prosperity, and the American Dream. With a fraction of the money and air time, Santorum came from nowhere to become the most formidable challenger to Mitt Romney through hard work and faith.

I heard Newt Gingrich on Sean Hannity’s radio show earlier this afternoon, and he is continuing to vow to stay in the race until the convention. He also asserted that he and Mitt Romney had vowed to run more “positive” campaigns going forward because ultimately this is about defeating Obama and not tearing down the eventual GOP nominee.

It’s all over but the crying at this point, folks. Mitt Romney is going to be our nominee.

*Deep breaths*

Temperature check: Is Barack Obama preferable to Mitt Romney?

Santorum – yesterday:

SAN ANTONIO, Texas – Rick Santorum played off of the Mitt Romney campaign’s Etch A Sketch gaffe today when he told an audience that the country might be better off with President Obama than with a candidate who will shift his positions with ease and who he believes is not very different from the president.

“You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future,” Santorum told a crowd at USAA.

I’m with Michelle Malkin on this one. The answer to the question is: no. But let me emphasize it a little more: Not no, but hell no.  While I suspect that Santorum’s point was more geared to independents and undecideds who may be leaning towards Romney, there’s a better way to get your point across about Mitt Romney being a career political chameleon without essentially suggesting it would be better to leave Obama in office than elect Mitt Romney.

I say this, of course, being one of the more vocal “anti-Mitts” out there.  I don’t like the guy, don’t trust him one single bit, and doubt I will ever be “pro-Mitt” – even if I do end up having to hold my nose and vote for him in the general election over Barack Obama.  But leaving Obama in office IS NOT PREFERABLE to Mitt Romney.

Having said that, my gut feeling is that if Romney is elected and becomes the “face” of the GOP, the fight to win people over to conservatism becomes that much harder – because if he becomes the GOP “brand” being the moderate to liberal he is on most issues, my worry is that people who don’t follow politics closely will wrongly associate “conservatism” with Mitt Romney courtesy of deliberate misrepresentation of him by liberals as “conservative”, and any actual conservative candidates/politicos who don’t fall in line with that type of pseudo-“conservatism” (the type we see often in the North East) could end up losing out in the end – and as a result, conservatism will lose.

Your thoughts?

Where’s the MSM/left wing outrage over *BO* using Christianity as a basis for beliefs?

Seeing as the mainstream media  with – sadly – the help of the anti-Santorum Matt Drudge – is waging a full-scale assault on Rick Santorum’s social and religious views (which often go together) in an effort to derail his campaign on the implied basis that Santorum is a fringe freako lunatic who would turn America into a theocracy immediately upon being elected President, it’s important to remember that President Barack Obama used his Christian faith, in part, as a strong basis for some of the policies he’s advocated.

You’re thinking “yeah, right”, right? You don’t just have to take my word on it.  He admitted during the course of his Presidential campaign that he was a strong believer in spiritual mentor Reverend Wright’s message of “social justice” – which should have been a clue to most Americans as to his belief system.  Below are more examples:

March 2008: Then-candidate Obama to a pastor on the issue of gay marriage:

On Sunday in the Appalachian town of Nelsonville, Ohio, where plant closures and the mortgage crisis are rippling through the economy, Pastor Leon Forte aimed his own double barrels at Obama, asking the candidate to explain (a) what he would do about the foreclosure crisis and (b) his faith.

“Your campaign sets a quandary for most evangelical Christians,” Forte, who heads up Grace Christian Center in Athens, Ohio, told Obama. “They believe in the social agenda that you have. They have a problem with what the conservatives have laid out as the moral litmus test about who is worthy and who is not.”

Obama tackled the easy part first -– how to clean up after the burst housing bubble and help struggling Americans keep their homes.

Then he talked about Jesus Christ and his own controversial minister, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. (who has praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan), along with same-sex marriage and abortion.

“I am a Christian,” Obama responded in low tones. “I am a devout Christian. I’ve been a member of the same church for 20 years. I pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can.”

[…]

Still, he said, “my faith is important to me. It’s not something that I try to push on other people. But it’s something that helps to guide my life and my values.”

While Obama said he does not believe in same-sex marriage, he argued strongly for civil unions that allow same-sex couples to visit each other in the hospital, let them transfer property to each other and protect them from discrimination. “If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which, I think, is, in my mind, more central than an obscure passage in Romans,” Obama said.

October 2007: Candidate Obama, pandering to a black Christian audience in South Carolina:

During the nearly two hour service that featured a rock band and hip-hop dancers, Obama shared the floor with the church’s pastor, Ron Carpenter. The senator from Illinois asked the multiracial crowd of nearly 4,000 people to keep him and his family in their prayers, and said he hoped to be “an instrument of God.”

“Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics,” Obama said. “Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power’s sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God.”

He finished his brief remarks by saying, “We’re going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.”

Interestingly enough, from that same CNN piece:

There are times on the stump when Obama even sounds like a pastor himself, referencing New Testament phrases and sometimes saying “I’m not gonna preach to ya!” when emphasizing a point to his audience.

According to the religion-based Web site Beliefnet.com and its “God-o-Meter” tool that measures “God-talk” in the presidential campaigns, Obama invokes religion more than any of his Democratic competitors.

More recently as in a few weeks ago, President Obama went the “Jesus was a liberal” route by asserting that He would be in favor of taxing the rich:

President Barack Obama on Thursday tied his proposal to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to his faith, telling leaders gathered for the National Prayer Breakfast that Jesus’s teachings have shaped that conclusion.

The rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said at the Washington Hilton, delivering remarks at an annual event that every president has attended since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

“We can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to him,” Obama said. “Avoiding phony religiosity. … This is especially important right now when we’re facing some big challenges as a nation.”

[…]

“When I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us,” Obama said, “I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody, but I also do it because I know far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years. And I believe in God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’”

Where was the red-faced outrage from the left over these remarks? Where has the blood-curdling outrage been from the mainstream media over Obama’s tendency not just to use his twisted interpretation of God’s word as a basis for policy but to, even worse, to cast himself in the role of Jesus Christ?  Oh, they don’t care – because they believe  he’s “The Messiah” as well so  it’s “move along here, nothing to see.”  The double standards are disgusting but not surprising to anyone who has watched the mainstream cover, coddle, and attempt to rehabilitate over and over again the “healer” image both Barack Obama and his wife disturbingly have tried to portray to the American people.

And let’s not forget other high-profile politicos who have tried to use their warped in interpretation of the Word to justify their policy positions on other hot button issues – like  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has done more than once on the issue of abortion.  Like Senator Babs Boxer has done regarding the issue of “man-made global warming.” I could go on and on, but you get the point.

An important thing to note here is that it’s perfectly ok to have a belief system that has been largely shaped by your religious background, upbringing, and experiences.   It’s also ok for you as a candidate for public office to note publicly that the views you have on a particular issue are based, in part, on your religious influences.  In turn, you should expect to be questioned by all sides when it comes to those views if they conflict with the views of voters and/or are particularly controversial.  Questioning candidates for office is, of course, ok, too.  In turn, candidates need to be prepared to answer those questions, and also need to be prepared for the likelihood that their answers will not please everyone, and will in some cases only lead to more questions.

What’s NOT ok, however, is for left wingers and their allies in the mainstream media to act like only Republicans wear their respective faiths on their sleeves.  So-called “progressive Christians” do this as well, and have done so even more frequently in the last several years as they try to win back “faith-based voters” – and as liberals try to justify their positions using backwards interpretations of scripture, the only people who take them to task for it are people like me who get extremely concerned when they hear both candidates and politicos alike assert a Biblical basis for a policy which doesn’t jive at all with what God’s Word actually says.  On the other hand, though, Christian conservatives like Rick Santorum are called to task for every faith-based assertion ever made, as if they’re secretly planning to make the United States of America a theocratic state — and the answers they give are never good enough to please their critics in the MSM and the Democrat party (but I repeat myself).

Ultimately, the last thing most of us want to see is a battle over religion between presidential candidates in the primaries, and in the general.  But if they are, both sides must be treated equally by both the press and liberal Democrats in order for it to be a fair debate  — which  is never going to happen.  Because it’s ok for liberals to use their interpretation of God’s Word as a basis, in part, to advance a “progressive agenda” of “social justice” (for the cheeeldren!), but it’s “unconstitutional” for Christian social conservatives to do similarly in an attempt to advance a conservative agenda based on traditional American values — “because we must respect the separation of church and state!!!!” ….  or something like that.

Is there any issue, any at all out there, on which liberals have not shown themselves to be wildly  hypocritical about at some point??

Dear Rick Santorum: Get your hands off my slot machine

**Posted by Phineas

Sigh. There are just no limited-government conservatives left in this race, are there? We all know about Mitt Romney and the indefensible individual mandate in RomneyCare. So, fine, we’ll just vote for the true conservative in the race, the man who savagely and effectively attacked Romney’s legacy, Rick Santorum, right? Right?

Ehh… Not so fast.

From an interview with Nevada journalist Jon Ralston, per Jim Geraghty:

I’m someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we’ve seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they end to grow exponentially as a result of that. It’s one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment, it’s another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.

Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet — “let everybody have it, let everybody do it.” No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn’t have and make available, to make it that easy to do. That’s why we regulate gambling. You have a big commission here that regulates gambling, for a reason.

I opposed gaming in Pennsylvania . . . A lot of people obviously don’t responsibly gamble and lose a lot and end up in not so great economic straits as a result of that. I believe there should be limitations.

Now, in one sense, Nanny Senator Santorum is right: freedom isn’t absolute. We have freedom of speech, but we cannot yell “fire!” in a crowded theater. We have freedom of religious practice, but no one advocates allowing human sacrifice as part of the service. (I hope.) Individual liberty generally meets its bounds where it endangers public safety or impinges on the rights of another. (1)

There are indeed limits.

But that’s not what Santorum is talking about here. He’s speaking in terms of a more moderate social cost (e.g., the damage done to a family by a gambling addiction) or simply the harm it might do to the individual person. And there’s the problem. As Allahpundit puts it:

You could swap in “drinking” for “gambling” there and have a rough argument for banning alcohol consumption in homes. (If you’re free to indulge in private, who’ll stop you from going overboard?) If you nominate Santorum, you’re getting a guy who’s more willing to try to save people from themselves than the average “personal responsibility” conservative, which means you’d better prepare for occasional moral tutelage from the presidential podium and maybe some new morals regulations if he can cobble together a congressional majority for it.

And for gambling or drinking, one could substitute all sorts private activities. Like to smoke? Want to order pipe tobacco or cigars from that great shop across the country? Hey, that stuff’s bad for you, bud! Want to watch an “adult” movie on late-night cable? President Santorum doesn’t think that’s “beneficial,” so he’s going to push Congress to regulate it.

Or what about credit card debt? Yes, there’s a real problem with people who wreck their finances abusing credit, but is it the government’s responsibility to protect us from ourselves? Would a President Santorum seek to limit us all to certain debt-to-income ratios? Do we get a “conservative” version of Dodd-Frank?

I’ll confess, it’s getting harder and harder to see much of an effective difference between the progressive liberal, Obama, and Rick Santorum, the self-proclaimed progressive conservative. Nannying is nannying, and statism is statism.

So, what does this mean for the election and how I’ll vote? I’ve said before that I’ll vote for any of the three serious potential Republican nominees over Obama, because I think any of them would be better than a second Obama term. But Santorum is making it much harder for me to be comfortable voting for him. If it is none of government’s business what health insurance I carry, neither is it their business if I choose to play some online poker — or a lot of online poker.

I’ve said before that I’ve decided to concentrate more on electing as conservative a Congress as possible (2) to rein in the big-government urges of whichever person is elected president. But this latest from Santorum has me thinking Romney would be the best choice for limited government conservatives.

Wait! I can explain! Put down the baseball bat!

Look at it this way: I’m convinced Mitt Romney has few set-in-stone principles and is more of a pragmatic problem-solver,willing to do what it takes to get the job done. In electoral races, that means he… “adjusts” his positions to fit what his target audience wants. In office, it means he works with whatever faction dominates the legislature to produce an accomplishment. In the end, this is a guy whose overriding urge is to be seen as successful. he is a tree that bends whichever way the prevailing wind blows.

Thus I’ve come to think that a President Romney would be open to the goals of limited government conservatism if he were faced with a Congress dominated by strong limited government, Tea Party factions in both chambers pressuring him from the Right. And he would be open to this influence in a way that a strongly principled social nanny-stater like Rick Santorum would never be.

Yep. It’s a “lesser of two evils” choice. Fun, eh?

Footnotes:
(1) Another illustration of why I’ll never be a “Big L” libertarian; the ones I’ve met tend to take annoyingly absolutist positions.
(2) Want to help California “right” it’s ship of state? Check out Elizabeth Emken, who’s running for the nomination to face Senator Feinstein in November.

PS: When you think about it, Rick Santorum has something in common with Melinda Henneberger.

RELATED: More from Bruce McQuain at The Conservatory. A rebuttal at Protein Wisdom.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Emotional “feminists” slam Santorum over misconstrued “emotions in combat” comments

I’m not on Team Santo but the uproar on Rick Santorum’s recent remarks on his opinion on women serving on the frontline is both ridiculous and typical of The Usual Suspects — but I repeat myself. Via ABC News (hat tip):

Rick Santorum raised some eyebrows by saying women should not be in combat because of the “the types of emotions involved.” Now, Santorum says, he is also concerned about “physical strength and capability” of women in combat situations.

First, on those “emotions,” Santorum says he was not talking about the emotions of women.

“I was talking about men’s emotional issues; not women,” Santorum told ABC News. “I mean, there’s a lot of issues. That’s just one of them.”

What emotional issues? Santorum says he believes that the men serving with women would put the protection of women in their unit above the overall the mission.

“So my concern is being in combat in that situation instead of being focused on the mission, they may be more concerned with protecting someone who may be in a vulnerable position, a woman in a vulnerable position,” Santorum said.

But Santorum says he is concerned about more than just the “emotional issues.”

“You throw on top of that just simply physical strength and capability and you may be out there on a mission where it’s you and a woman and if you’re injured, the ability to transport that person back. And you know, there’s just, there are physical limitations,” Santorum said.

Santorum is 100% correct here, IMO.  Not so, say liberal “feminists.” Bring on the fauxtrage! “Maya” at Feministing:

Pro tip: If you bring up “emotions” when defending your discriminatory views, it will be an immediate red flag that you are a sexist asshat. (Seriously, the only thing worse might be talking about that weird thing where we bleed every month.) This is particularly true when you are discussing women and men who regularly face extreme mental and physical challenges you could only dream of.

Pro tip: If you’re going to go and blast a man for allegedly being a “sexist asshat” because of comments you misconstrued to mean ‘women are prone to emotional reactionaryism”, you probably shouldn’t go about inadvertently proving their (alleged) point by being an … emotionally reactionary woman. Duh.

And speaking of, we have our next emotionally reactionary feminist – Tina Dupuy from Crooks and Liars:

“Other types of emotions?” That must be his Low T talking. Those old guys get so cranky when it’s “that time of life.”

In Santorum’s 2005 book, “It Takes a Family” he famously came out against women working outside of the home. He wrote, “It provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home.” Yes, he blamed radical feminism. And he quickly lost his senate seat by 17 points.

So, keep talking Rick. You’re sure to win the primary against Herbert Hoover who’s looking more progressive and forward thinking every time you open your mouth.

Sigh. Unfortunately, Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin, whose volume work I respect but who has made no secret recently of the fact that she is firmly in the Romney camp, goes off on a similar tangent with misconstruing Santorum’s women in combat remarks plus some comments he made in his 2005 book:

Yikes. Santorum might want to rethink that and figure out a way to walk back some of that. With women making up almost half the workforce (and now out-numbering men among workers with at least a bachelor’s degree), Santorum’s remarks sound badly off-key. Perhaps he’ll walk back his comments on CNN and explain he’s rethought what he wrote in his book. In such matters, the sooner he does that, the better.

Why should he say he has “rethought what he wrote in his book” if he really believes it? Not only that, but Santorum’s book comments, unsurprisingly, have been taken out of context – as Ann Althouse explains here (bolded emphasis added by me):

Rubin quotes something Santorum said in 2005 the crux of which is: “The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.” Rubin exclaims “Yikes” and pronounces the statement “badly off-key.” Is Rubin succumbing to the kind of emotional reasoning that is so typical of… journalists?

Feminism succeeded dramatically in making women feel that life outside of the workplace is stultifying. (Read “The Feminine Mystique,” the 1963 rant about how horrifyingly small life is for a homemaker.) Here’s the book Santorum was promoting when he called the “radical” feminists to account: “It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.” I’m going to read it, as I’ve been reading “The Feminine Mystique” lately, and it’s worth understanding what happened in American culture. You can care about equality without jumping to the conclusion that everyone needs a job! What’s so wonderful about a job? If 2 adults can found the economic and emotional unit we call the family, they are most free if they realize that there are many different ways to structure their lives and find happiness together.

I read Santorum’s 2005 quote as saying no more than that: You don’t need to buy into dogma about “professional accomplishments” as “the key to happiness.” What’s “yikes”-worthy about that? Is it that women will flip out if you say anything that even sounds like you’d deny them full access to the workplace? Ironically, that thought is the stereotype that women are emotional to the point of irrationality.

Bingo.

Later in her piece, Althouse references the relevant passage from Santorum’s book and responds:

Notice the attention to equality. He refers to the traditional role of mothers in the home, but he also acknowledges that fathers may perform this role too and that both deserve respect and encouragement.

SHOCKING.  How horrible!  Equality when it comes to BOTH sexes in the family, and a call for rad-fems to respect not just moms who work outside the home but also those who have the demanding job of being a stay at home mother.  I remember distinctly back in my feminist days the ridicule my fellow feminist friends subjected stay at home moms to in the course of discussion on the issue – and the anti-SAHM bigotry is alive and well still today.  Santorum clearly called for an equality of sorts when it came to how feminists view career moms versus stay at home moms.  This  is what Rubin thinks Santorum should “rethink”, and what the emotionally reactionary feminists at Crooks and Liars & Feministing (among other popular left wing hangouts) believe makes Santorum a “sexist”?  Santorum’s book remarks are some of the same types of remarks conservative women not blinded by the tired “feminist” dogma of days gone by have been saying for decades, but because they were also made by a man – a staunchly conservative one at that – they’re deserving of special “outrage” by women who are too heavily invested (socially, financially, and politically) in making women out to be perpetual victims of our “patriarchal society” than to actually look at the deeper contextual meaning of what thoughtful men have to say on the subject.

Kinda shows just who the real “sexists” are here, doesn’t it?  l-)

Related: Tony Campbell at the Moderate Voice explains in an, ahem, “non-sexist” way, Santorum’s argument against women serving on the frontlines (bolded emphasis added by him):

Simply put – Rick Santorum may feel that men may not be able to handle the emotional strain of seeing women being mortally wounded in combat.

As men, we are hard wired to protect women from harm’s way. As an Army Chaplain, I have had to counsel men who have seen their comrades die on the field of battle. I can not imagine the added psychological pain of seeing a woman killed in such a fashion when actions could have been taken to save her life. I believe it is these “other types of emotions” that Santorum may be talking about.

That is the point Santorum is trying to make – would men jeopardize the military mission in order to save the life of a female soldier? Which is more important – a life of a female soldier or the success of the mission? Men have come to accept the cost of human life (some better than others) when that soldier is a fellow male; the historic ideal of chivalry would be put to the ultimate test if women were to serve as combat soldiers.

Not only that, but what about other situations not related to wounded in action or KIA? There’s the very real possibility women would be more prone to being taken as a prisoner of war and subjected to the tortures that men are – and worse. We’ve seen that with women in non-frontline roles already.  To complicate matters, what if the woman is a mother … or expecting, and those serving alongside her know it? What if she’s the wife/sister/girlfriend of another in the military?  As Campbell said above, men are (fortunately) hardwired to protect women at all costs and that will not change when/if they are ever serving side by side on the frontlines, and that DOES have the potential of endangering the mission. It’s not saying that women are “incapable” of being a good soldier on the ground or anything of the sort, even though there are unquestionable physical strength differences also at play which Santorum referenced somewhat in his remarks.

These ARE the emotional conflicts that men would face when serving their country on the battlefield if they were next to a woman.   I could go on and on about this issue but instead of boring you with several pages of “emotional” blather (wink!), I’d like to hear your thoughts on the subject of women serving on the frontlines and whether or not you think it’s a good idea.

The floor is yours, my dear readers.

Sunday Links Fiesta, debate-skipping edition

**Posted by Phineas

I still can’t bring myself to watch the Republican debates: the quiz-show format, the never-ending quest for the gotcha moment or highlight soundbite, and (usually) liberal MSM hacks asking questions of conservative Republicans. (And on that last, I say “WTF??”)

Thank God there’s NFL football on.

But there are also good articles to read on a lazy Sunday afternoon. Here are a few I want to commend to your attention:

Debt-Watch: Senator (and future president) Marco Rubio has had enough with debt ceiling increases and wrote a scathing letter to President Obama to announce his opposition to another increase. Key phrase: “…the first three years of your presidency have been a profile in leadership failure.” Ouch!

Operation Fast & Furious: Three key ATF officials have been reassigned pending the DoJ Inspector General’s report. More scapegoats to protect Eric Holder and President Obama?

High-Speed Railroad-mania: For some reason, the statist Left are obsessed with high-speed railroads. (I suspect it’s a control-thing for them.) China’s vaunted program has been mired in scandal, while California’s proposed high-speed boondoggle has neared $100 billion in projected costs. So, what does the supposedly conservative (and definitely broke) government of the UK propose to do? Build their own high-speed railroad! James Delingpole calls it Britain’s “latest suicidal gesture.”

American Decline-Watch: President Obama announced massive cuts in military spending and active forces. The President says this will make American forces leaner and more efficient, while meeting our defense needs. Analyst Max Boot say these cuts put America on a “suicidal trajectory.” I agree with Max. For a reminder that American decline is a deliberate choice by Obama and his allies, have a look at Charles Krauthammer’s brilliant “decline is a choice.”

ObamaCare: The Supreme Court will be holding hearings on the constitutionality of ObamaCare soon. In preparation, Mario Loyola and other conservative-libertarian scholars have filed a brief explaining why not only should the individual mandate be struck down, but other key provisions, too.

Candidates-Watch: I’ve announced my support for Governor Perry for president, but other candidates are worth looking at, too. Fred Barnes argues that Governor Romney is more conservative than we think. I’m not wholly convinced, but thought there was enough here to chew over to make it worth passing along. Meanwhile, at Conservative Commune, a conservative, pro-life, Catholic woman makes the case against Rick Santorum.

Liberal Fascism-Watch: Call it “statism,” “the Chicago Way,” the “thugocracy,” whatever, President Obama is showing an arrogance and disregard for constitutional government that I have never seen in my lifetime. (In fact, I suspect this is what a Huey Long presidency would have looked like). At City Journal, Fred Siegel and Joel Kotkin write about “The New Authoritarianism.” It’s alarmist, but rightfully so. Meanwhile, former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy takes Obama and the Democrats to the woodshed for violating the constitutional order and the Republicans for doing nothing to stop it.

Birthday-Watch: It was Kim Jong-Un’s birthday this weekend, though it’s a state secret as to just which day it is. The Telegraph has video of the latest Dear Leader celebrating by doing his best Michael Dukakis impression and driving a tank. Really, these NoKo propaganda videos are almost an entertainment genre themselves. My favorite is the happy soldiers jumping up and down for joy at the little Un’s visit.

Finally, food: After all those annoying or depressing articles, doesn’t some comfort food sound good? And what’s a better side dish for breakfast than potatoes? You’ll love these “Perfect Breakfast Potatoes,” from Crepes of Wrath.

Hey, I’m not all-politics, all the time, y’know!

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Santorum: I’m running for a job we don’t need

**Posted by Phineas

Perhaps the EEOC’s next crusade should be to protect the rights of those who don’t even know what job they’re applying for:

Rick Santorum took several shots at Mitt Romney during his first Monday campaign event here, seeking to neutralize the appeal of the former Massachusetts governor’s business background, and implying that he lacks principle.

Referring to Romney’s argument that his business career makes him well-suited to the presidency, Santorum said, “We’re not looking for a chief executive officer. We’re looking for a commander in chief.”

(Emphasis added)

Have another look at the job description, Rick. From Article II, section 1 of the Constitution:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Well, well. Turns out we do want a chief executive, as well as a commander in chief. How odd.

Not surprising, I guess, coming from the guy whose bright idea to endorse Arlen Specter in 2004 gave us ObamaCare.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)